Gold Member

That whole thread was dog piled by the forum with similar banter...Regardless of any one direct impact to this guys mental health having people on mass ganging up like that and being egged on by a moderator is atrocious and is not a good look

Hopefully it’s just a prank but if it isn’t expect the same social justice wheel to spin up again and watch them deflect it

Junior Member

This country is broken. Almost 4 years of Trump and Biden is the frontrunner from the opposition, which should be coming in like a swift angry kick? What a joke. Biden is the front runner because most people aren’t paying attention to the primary yet, he has the highest name recognition, and...

www.resetera.com

Uh, did they ban him for supporting Trump or Biden? Guise help, my brain can't process this one.

This is a developing situation that may end up getting worse. Probably a thing we should be keeping an eye on. Millions of people are running out of usable water in the southern Indian city of Chennai, which is currently experiencing major droughts and a rapidly worsening water crisis. At...

www.resetera.com

Keywords: "Climate Refugees" "majority black and brown people"

But that's not all. Here is another post I found dating back from December 2017.

I sometimes browse the reddit for vancouver and every now and again you see those types. I'm 100% on board with immigration. I benefitted from it myself, but I'm very weary of wealthy immigrants who come in with no intention of learning about canadian culture and who want to exploit the housing...

www.resetera.com

"We need to get comfortable with immigration""We need to get comfortable with immigration""We need to get comfortable with immigration""We need to get comfortable with immigration"

Anyone starting to see a pattern? By the way, I was once again, the first person on the scene to call this nonsense out.

Call it a hunch, but I recognize the danger that you cannot support climate change and unlimited immigration at the same time.

The SJW's however, are much more sneakier than this. They are using the agenda of race to push infinite immigration while disregarding the huge environmental impact this will have on our planet.

It will be interesting to hear how race-expert JordanN proposes to "keep people where they are" when natural catastrophes (caused by the west) make their homes inhabitable.

Under the assumption you do not just want to insist to look at everything through racist goggles, let me explain to you the thought process:
- Mass immigration is a challenge and causes issues in the countries that take in the immigrants. Due to culture clash, due to financial burdens, due to adaptation challenges, due to political push-back.
- If the basis for granting asylum is given, humanity calls for accepting immigration even though the aforementioned challenges exist.
- In other cases, where people illegally immigrated (without base for asylum), but they have been in the country for a long time and adapted well to the society in the host country, it is needlessly cruel to throw them out.
- Climate change is an enormous problem and it sure looks like we will not prevent the worst consequences, because, in large parts, of conservative leaning people and organisations blocking such efforts in pursuit of profits
- As a consequence of climate change, it is projected that serious natural disasters will amass predominantly in poor regions, which makes the places (near) uninhabitable.
- This will lead to refugee number exceeding well beyond what we have seen e.g. in the Syria crisis.

All of these things are consistent: It is preferable to not have a lot of migration due to humanitarian crisis. For several reasons, among them also egoistical points, linked to the challenges of integration. Yet, when there are humanitarian crises, it is our (moral and legal) obligation to take in refugees. Now, it is being pointed out that ignoring the climate crisis will lead to a hard to manage refugee crisis, as a consequence, right-winger positions that combine being anti-immigration and anti-climate-policies are contradictory and will lead to suffering.

Who is "humanity"? You mean the United Nations? Yeah they got a good track record of keeping the world in order.

Yoshi said:

- In other cases, where people illegally immigrated (without base for asylum), but they have been in the country for a long time and adapted well to the society in the host country, it is needlessly cruel to throw them out.

No they don't. This type of thinking is what has lead to current migration problems in Western countries. We initially took on a few, now millions of people continue to pour in because they refuse to to go live in their own countries.

There is no cruelty when they had no right to be here in the first place.

Yoshi said:

- Climate change is an enormous problem and it sure looks like we will not prevent the worst consequences, because, in large parts, of conservative leaning people and organisations blocking such efforts in pursuit of profits

I don't see liberal politicians riding on bikes to work. Nor living in wood cabins. They're equally just as guilty for contributing to the climate crisis.

Edit: Actually, I lay the bigger blame on the liberal politicians. Whereas conservatives are mostly just ignorant or money hungry, liberals should know that mass migration of people into countries with higher per capita pollution is simply irreversible. They're not going to kick out the 300,000+ people who continue to move here, thus the problem only continues to accelerate faster and faster, but now we also have cultural conflict to deal with.

Yoshi said:

All of these things are consistent: It is preferable to not have a lot of migration due to humanitarian crisis. For several reasons, among them also egoistical points, linked to the challenges of integration. Yet, when there are humanitarian crises, it is our (moral and legal) obligation to take in refugees.

Except a billion people flooding into Western countries will lead to instant collapse.

It is actually incredibly funny that the only option left is to just keep shuffling people on this earth until there is no where left to run. I do not support this. I support adapting to your environment.

Member

Yeah, I don't agree with the idea that Beef is really relevant in Etika's potential suicide, at least no more than any random twitter troll is. Tasteless, but not something I'd go out of my way to knock them for.

What I WILL knock Era for is the fact they're locking every single Etika thread despite the fact there's lot to discuss, from various updates posted on his subreddit to people actually taking mental health seriously for fucking once. There are people on Era that don't really check other places due to being in a bubble and an Etika thread would actually be relevant to them. But nope, can't have people pointing out the shit your mods have done because that would reflect poorly on you.

No they don't. This type of thinking is what has lead to current migration problems in Western countries. We initially took on a few, now millions of people continue to pour in because they refuse to to go live in their own countries.

There is no cruelty when they had no right to be here in the first place.

If you did not manage to identify illegal immigrants for 20 years, they have established a fully integrated life in the country and participate in society as any legal citizen, then yes, it is needlessly cruel to throw them out at that point. Had you managed to find them in the first couple of years, that's a different story, but after such a long while and in case of successful immigration, it is cruel and nothing else.

Great argument. First of all, green politicians do tend to use more ecological means of transport where available, second, politics goe much beyond the individual behaviour and hinge on general policy. Investing into clean energy sources, outruling non-clean ones, prohibiting unnecessary plastic items, putting (much) higher taxes on less ecological means of transportation (in particular. flights), there are so many issues that can best be tackled on a collective rather than purely individually.

Except a billion people flooding into Western countries will lead to instant collapse.

It is actually incredibly funny that the only option left is to just keep shuffling people on this earth until there is no where left to run. I do not support this. I support adapting to your environment.

This is my main beef with the typical right-wing western position. They are typically against environmental regulation, drug legalization and regulation and in favor of foreign intervention and wars and then they whine about immigration when their own policies are causing mass immigration because of helping render other latitudes unlivable. It is like the right complaining now about China dominating the market or cultural invasion from other countries when in the 80s and 90s they were selling us "globalization" as the ultimate goal and value of the capitalist system. I mean the left has a lot of shit going on for them but the right has a real problem with facing how the real world works in these instances and facing responsibility for the policies they have been pushing for decades (and it's not like they weren't warned about this).

Formerly 'matt404au'

It will be interesting to hear how race-expert JordanN proposes to "keep people where they are" when natural catastrophes (caused by the west) make their homes inhabitable.

Under the assumption you do not just want to insist to look at everything through racist goggles, let me explain to you the thought process:
- Mass immigration is a challenge and causes issues in the countries that take in the immigrants. Due to culture clash, due to financial burdens, due to adaptation challenges, due to political push-back.
- If the basis for granting asylum is given, humanity calls for accepting immigration even though the aforementioned challenges exist.
- In other cases, where people illegally immigrated (without base for asylum), but they have been in the country for a long time and adapted well to the society in the host country, it is needlessly cruel to throw them out.
- Climate change is an enormous problem and it sure looks like we will not prevent the worst consequences, because, in large parts, of conservative leaning people and organisations blocking such efforts in pursuit of profits
- As a consequence of climate change, it is projected that serious natural disasters will amass predominantly in poor regions, which makes the places (near) uninhabitable.
- This will lead to refugee number exceeding well beyond what we have seen e.g. in the Syria crisis.

All of these things are consistent: It is preferable to not have a lot of migration due to humanitarian crisis. For several reasons, among them also egoistical points, linked to the challenges of integration. Yet, when there are humanitarian crises, it is our (moral and legal) obligation to take in refugees. Now, it is being pointed out that ignoring the climate crisis will lead to a hard to manage refugee crisis, as a consequence, right-winger positions that combine being anti-immigration and anti-climate-policies are contradictory and will lead to suffering.

And if I don't want my country to continue losing natural habitats and valuable farmland, it also humane to oppose letting infinite numbers of people coming to live here.

But not only that, I just stated why migration is a short term solution. What's going to happen to the U.S when it collapses? Just move everyone to Canada? And when Canada falls, where do we go next?
No, we can't keep reshuffling humans around untill nothing of this planet remains. I already made reference to Australia and Israel as examples of how countries can still thrive in impossible conditions.

When we try, we get called "racist". Now that there's millions of illegals living in our countries, any attempt at trying to deport them leads to accusations of "Nazis" "concentration camps".

Yoshi said:

Great argument. First of all, green politicians do tend to use more ecological means of transport where available, second, politics goe much beyond the individual behaviour and hinge on general policy.

I said liberal, not greens. Or do you think Hillary Clinton falls under that umbrella of taxing companies and banning plastic straw?. Again, let me reminds you politcians like her are frequently fliers and live in mansions that produce more waste than the average person does.

Yoshi said:

You could also try to not cause humanitarian crises in the first place. For instance by not starting unneeded wars in other countries and by majorly investing into green technologies.

Member

Historically and right now, western countries have dominated CO2 per capita and note that other countries with high emissions often do so for the benefit of the west (obtaining resources or producing cheaply for the west).

But not only that, I just stated why migration is a short term solution. What's going to happen to the U.S when it collapses? Just move everyone to Canada? And when Canada falls, where do we go next?
No, we can't keep reshuffling humans around untill nothing of this planet remains. I already made reference to Australia and Israel as examples of how countries can still thrive in impossible conditions.

You are just being called a racist because you are a prime example of a racist. It is rare to find someone so obsessed with race issues and pseudo-science pertaining to race-issues. Deporting people who you just found illegally crossing the border is fine. The process must be humane, of course, but in principle, disallowing illegal immigration without grounds for asylum is fine. Deporting well-integrated people after 20 years is not.

I said liberal, not greens. Or do you think Hillary Clinton falls under that umbrella of taxing companies and banning plastic straw?. Again, let me reminds you politcians like her are frequently fliers and live in mansions that produce more waste than the average person does.

Why do you discuss Hillary Clinton with me? I have never been in support of her, other than finding her less terrible than Trump. But still terrible. Yes, Clinton would not have done much to combat climate change - she would still have been a better pick than Trump in that regard.

So the solution should be letting people stay and fix their countries right? Not move billions into other countries.

Edit: Or if you're suggesting these countries are just economically poor and can't fix themselves, how is moving billions more poor people suppose to make things better? More poor people = more dependence on government. Guess who's going to have pay for the welfare of these "refugees"? Now imagine billions of them on your door step.

Israel has only existed for nearly 50+ years, but funny they still picked a desert to build their society on.
Maybe just maybe, my point exists, that humans should start learning how to thrive in their environments, not take over others.

Yoshi said:

You are just being called a racist because you are a prime example of a racist. It is rare to find someone so obsessed with race issues and pseudo-science pertaining to race-issues. Deporting people who you just found illegally crossing the border is fine. The process must be humane, of course, but in principle, disallowing illegal immigration without grounds for asylum is fine. Deporting well-integrated people after 20 years is not.

And who made you the judge of this? It is not a human right to live in the West, but you already made an example of yourself of calling me "racist" for supporting that.
Also, what defines "well-integrated"? Last I checked, not every illegal person has a certified track record. Maybe if they actually came here legally, their name wouldn't have to worry about being stuck in the mud. But there's no gauging an illegal immigrant to that of a gang banger next door. Not my fault, they can go back home.

Yoshi said:

I never said only the countries that cause the issues are the ones who need to take in refugees as a consequence.

Israel has only existed for nearly 50+ years, but funny they still picked a desert to build their society on.
Maybe just maybe, my point exists, that humans should start learning how to thrive in their environments, not take over others.

Yeah, really funny, I wonder how it could possibly happen that the Israeli wanted that specific land. Probably because they love sand so much and wanted to be motivated to research ways of obtaining sufficient water resources.

I call you a racist because of your intelligence "research" stuff, you constant lamenting of white genocide and nefarious political takeovers by means of immigration. Your further anti-immigration stance naturally gets connected to your overall deeply racist views. The position "it is not a human right to live in the west" is not racist. But your base position / worldview why you make this claim is racist as fuck. And you deliberately make innocuous claims such as "it is not a human right to live in the west" to derive crude, inhumane positions from that that more often than not move the agency in a balatant way (see, e.g. the first quoted part of this posting).

Also, what defines "well-integrated". Last I checked, not every illegal person has a certified track record. Maybe if they actually came here legally, their name wouldn't have to worry about being stuck in the mud. But there's no gauging an illegal immigrant to that of a gang banger next door. Not my fault, they can go back home.

Being fluent in the language, having a job or succesful business, having children in public schools, being an active member of the community. There are numerous indicators to that. Your gang banger insinuation is just another racist talking point and one I will not entertain.

Banned

Kinda hard when they’re deleting everything. And yeah, I’ll take the tweets word over theirs any day considering they’ll label people, including myself, bigots and harass people, because frankly, this sounds right up their alley. But there, I fixed that post. Me fixing my post on the other page is more than they would ever do for me or you.

And I'm saying they can't keep moving to Western countries indefinitely. Especially when there isn't even a climate diaster actually happening. Maybe that tells me they don't actually care and they're just making their way to Western countries anyway?

Yeah, really funny, I wonder how it could possibly happen that the Israeli wanted that specific land. Probably because they love sand so much and wanted to be motivated to research ways of obtaining sufficient water resources.

They cared enough that they didn't actually abandon it when they saw first hand Israel is no Europe. It still took people to construct the roads and buildings that could flourish in a desert environment. Maybe the rest of the third world should take notice before they choose to move?

Lol, keep crying. If you can't actually refute scientific evidence, calling someone "racist" becomes 100% bottomless.
I only post facts. Just as how I am posting facts in this conversation, it doesn't do me any favors to use "emotions" instead.

I've also posted before that immigration helps turn a blind eye to Native American issues. After all, if governments are happy to import new a population of people, what do you think is going to happen to the old stock?

Or am I suppose to believe that the millions of people who move to the USA are all eager to speak Cherokee and practice native traditions?

Yoshi said:

. And you deliberately make innocuous claims such as "it is not a human right to live in the west" to derive crude, inhumane positions from that that more often than not move the agency in a balatant way (see, e.g. the first quoted part of this posting).

I don't have a human right to live in Japan. Does that make the Japanese inhuman? I don't think they are. I respect that borders exist and without them, we can't just have millions of people migrating and overwhelming entire infrastructures.

THAT'S humanity. Unlimited immigration to the West because you refuse to fix your own country, that is inhumane.

Yoshi said:

Being fluent in the language, having a job or succesful business, having children in public schools, being an active member of the community. There are numerous indicators to that.

Except there's nothing that guarantees every illegal immigrant does this. Like I said, they chose to have the baggage thrown on them when they refused to become a legal citizen. That's not my problem and if they hate our countries so much for enforcing OUR LAWS, then why don't they go back?

They choose to come here, they can't demand people respect them. Respect is something that is earned.

And I'm saying they can't keep moving to Western countries indefinitely. Especially when there isn't even a climate diaster actually happening. Maybe that tells me they don't actually care and they're just making their way to Western countries anyway?

There are other legitimate asylum reasons. And yes, also people who only move for economical reasons, but these people have no asylum basis for their immigration and therefore are not included in the group I was talking about.

They cared enough that they didn't actually abandon it when they saw first hand Israel is no Europe. It still took people to construct the roads and buildings that could flourish in a desert environment. Maybe the rest of the third world should take notice before they choose to move?

Lol, keep crying. If you can't actually refute scientific evidence, calling someone "racist" becomes 100% bottomless.
I only post facts. Just as how I am posting facts in this conversation, it doesn't do me any favors to use "emotions" instead.

You are not posting facts, you are posting racist conjecture based on fringe statistics research. Your "black people are genetrically stupid" line of talking was not not factual. And you ongoing "white genocide" idiocy and the corresponding "war on white people" Resetera-quotations are deeply rooted in your own feelings of superiority and fears of the foreign. It is thinly veiled racist fear mongering and nothing else.

I don't have a human right to live in Japan. Does that make the Japanese inhuman? I don't think they are. I respect that borders exist and without them, we can't just have millions of people migrating and overwhelming entire infrastructures.

THAT'S humanity. Unlimited immigration to the West because you refuse to fix your own country, that is inhumane.

I would need to look into Japanese laws pertaining to immigration to answer that question. Japan is not exactly the easiest country to reach from Syria. I am respecting borders as well and have said that it is fine to prevent illegal immigration. It is just not OK to throw out people who have established themselves over many, many years after immigrating illegally, to treat illegal immigrants inhumanely or to outrule legitimate asylum seekers. You fix your own country talking point when it comes to legitimate asylum is so downright idiotic that I do not think you even mean it.

Except there's nothing that guarantees every illegal immigrant does this. Like I said, they chose to have the baggage thrown on them when they refused to become a legal citizen. That's not my problem and if they hate our countries so much for enforcing OUR LAWS, then why don't they go back?

I never siad there is a guarantee for that. Refusing to become a legal citizen is a very nice term again. Because it is so very easy to become a legal citizen after illegal immigration. You describe it as if they were asked "Hey, do you want to become US citizen?" and they said "Nah, I rather stay illegal immigrant, thanks". How can you not see how this view is totally skewed?

I've also posted before that immigration helps turn a blind eye to Native American issues. After all, if governments are happy to import new a population of people, what do you think is going to happen to the old stock?

Or am I suppose to believe that the millions of people who move to the USA are all eager to speak Cherokee and practice native traditions?

I am confused, what do you think does immigration have to do with fertility rates of Native Americans? Do you feel that Native Americans say "I would really like to get some more children, but since there are ten Mexican immigrants in the neighbouring town, I will keep my genitals in my pants"? What "rational" point do you take away from these statistics?

Junior Member

There are other legitimate asylum reasons. And yes, also people who only move for economical reasons, but these people have no asylum basis for their immigration and therefore are not included in the group I was talking about.

To make a long story short, they can take their asylum claims to actual near by countries. The USA doesn't directly border South America and yet migrants still end up on their soil anyway. That becomes obvious they're gaming the system by refusing to to take asylum in the first country they actually cross.

Funny you say that. Countries don't just become wealthy out of thin air. It still takes a group of people or a type of society that enables success to flourish or be rewarded.

But even still, if you buy into the argument that these countries are just going to be poor forever, then how is migration/asylum suppose to be a good thing? If you missed my edit, I clearly mentioned that must mean you are going to see more and more people depending on the government, which translates into paying for more welfare.

So which one is it? Do you support mass migration/asylum even if it means most people coming will still need help from the government, or do you believe these people can fix their countries but refuse to and just seek out Western ones instead?

Yoshi said:

You are not posting facts, you are posting racist conjecture based on fringe statistics research

There is no such thing. Your [lack of] rebuttals and poor memory of what I've actually said (there was never a post I made calling black people "genetically stupid") shows you are still very much ignorant on the subject Refusing to look up any facts, and just throws yourself into a sea of feelings.
You can either be a grown man/woman and actually read the papers presented to you, or you can continue to throw temper tantrums and live in your own reality of delusion. The choice is yours.

Edit: If you are serious about discussing this separate topic in depth, reach me through PM. If not, don't bother to bring it up in future arguments.

Yoshi said:

I would need to look into Japanese laws pertaining to immigration to answer that question. Japan is not exactly the easiest country to reach from Syria.

This myth has been debunked.
Japan's distance does not actually stop people from moving there. We have people from Central Africa or the Middle East still touch down in America or even England, why the hell would Japan be exempt from the same technology that moves large amounts of people across land mass?

Edit: Also mathematically speaking, Japan is closer to Syria than the U.S is.

Yoshi said:

I am respecting borders as well and have said that it is fine to prevent illegal immigration. It is just not OK to throw out people who have established themselves over many, many years after immigrating illegally, to treat illegal immigrants inhumanely or to outrule legitimate asylum seekers.

They didn't establish anything. They broke the law and are apprehended as such. I made no mention of treating them inhumanely.
Regarding "asylum seekers", if Japan can only admit 20 people, then I want other countries to establish similar limits.

Yoshi said:

I never siad there is a guarantee for that. Refusing to become a legal citizen is a very nice term again. Because it is so very easy to become a legal citizen after illegal immigration. You describe it as if they were asked "Hey, do you want to become US citizen?" and they said "Nah, I rather stay illegal immigrant, thanks". How can you not see how this view is totally skewed?

It's called waiting in line. If I want Japanese citizenship, I would send an application and wait for approval. If I cross into Japan without actually being accepted, Japan would be 100% within their right to remove me from their territory. The fault is only those who refuse to follow the rules.

Italy's active population is shrinking at a rate not seen since the days when World War One and a deadly pandemic were wiping out people by the thousands, the latest figures from the national statistics office show. Italy is set to become one of the few countries in the world to...

www.resetera.com

And the posts that follow are from the usual suspects with the same themes.

People may not like it, but "immigration" will keep showing up in headlines more and more more frequently. Especially when you look at the agenda tied to each and every one of them.

Member

So what should I actually do to respond to JordanN's continued racist and xenophobic talling points in this thread? Open a new thread "This is why JordanN's postings in that other thread are unbearable"?As long as these discussions of random Era postings of political issues happen here, I feel the only appropriate place to answer on them is also here.

To make a long story short, they can take their asylum claims to actual near by countries. The USA doesn't directly border South America and yet migrants still end up on their soil anyway. That becomes obvious they're gaming the system by refusing to to take asylum in the first country they actually cross.

The first country suitable to apply for asylum depends on the route. There are indeed rules that asylum seekers who crossed save third party countries can be rejected for that, so I do not know what your point is here.

Israel was founded as a rich country, not out of thin air, but out of western protection, and the people who moved there from the west. Israel is a pretty unique situation, it is pretty dumb to holding that up as an example for development of third world countries.

So which one is it? Do you support mass migration/asylum even if it means most people coming will still need help from the government, or do you believe these people can fix their countries but refuse to and just seek out Western ones instead?

I support asylum for legitimate asylum reasons, even if it means people need government assistance, yes. However, after the asylum reason has passed, staying in the country should very much depend on your integration efforts.

This myth has been debunked.
Japan's distance does not actually stop people from moving there. We have people from Central Africa or the Middle East still touch down in America or even England, why the hell would Japan be exempt from the same technology that moves large amounts of people across land mass?

Edit: Also mathmatically speaking, Japan is closer to Syria than the U.S is.

Look at what needs to be crossed to get from Syria to NA (the sea) and what needs to be crossed to reach Japan (a couple of super dangerous countries). Difficult to reach does not exclusively pertain to distance. Also, if asylum laws are particularly strict in Japan, that of course is also a legitimate reason to choose another country as destination.

It's called waiting in line. If I want Japanese citizenship, I would send an application and wait for approval. If I cross into Japan without actually being accepted, Japan would be 100% within their right to remove me from their territory. The fault is only those who refuse to follow the rules.

How is this relevant to the lifes of illegal immigrants who are now already living in the US and have established themselves a life there? They could have tried different routes, i.e. apply to visa (or citizenship, but applying for citizenship from another country is pretty much a waste of time and you, as a huge immigration-enemy should know that), but that's a decision long in the past and it is still completely baseless to then say they refused to become legal citizens. Refusing to become a legal citizen would necessitate an offer of such.

Member

So what should I actually do to respond to JordanN's continued racist and xenophobic talling points in this thread? Open a new thread "This is why JordanN's postings in that other thread are unbearable"?

It's only unique in that the country itself is still rich in spite of its lack of resources and its ability to thrive in the desert.
Meanwhile there are 3rd world countries right now sitting on resources worth billions but 99% of the population remain poor.

Yoshi said:

I support asylum for legitimate asylum reasons, even if it means people need government assistance, yes.

All I'm saying is if Japan can get away with such a low number, I request the same for all over countries as well.

Yoshi said:

How is this relevant to the lifes of illegal immigrants who are now already living in the US and have established themselves a life there? They could have tried different routes, i.e. apply to visa (or citizenship, but applying for citizenship from another country is pretty much a waste of time and you, as a huge immigration-enemy should know that), but that's a decision long in the past and it is still completely baseless to then say they refused to become legal citizens. Refusing to become a legal citizen would necessitate an offer of such.

Then maybe they just shouldn't bother coming here in the first place? Once again, you seem to be arguing that illegals have a right to skip ahead of the line and take a piece of the country for themselves. They don't have that right. They gotta go back home and apply legally if they want in. There sob story is not a right to disobey the law.

Yoshi said:

They do not hate US laws in general, they do not like being removed from the country.

It's only unique in that the country itself is still rich in spite of its lack of resources and its ability to thrive in the desert.
Meanwhile there are 3rd world countries right now sitting on resources worth billions but 99% of the population remain poor.

I am unsure whether you have heard about it, but there was an invention called the internet, where you can get information. It is pretty neat, even though it of course also offers opportunities for hardcore racists to spread their ideology. In fact, there was a huge discussion of refugees "mysteriously" owning internet-capable touch phones a few years back. If you were to move to another country from a war-ridden country, would you not take a look which options you have and which appear to be the best choice, among various variables, such as liklihood of getting accepted?

Then maybe they just shouldn't bother coming here in the first place? Once again, you seem to be arguing that illegals have a right to skip ahead of the line and take a piece of the country for themselves. They don't have that right. They gotta go back home and apply legally if they want in. There sob story is not a right to disobey the law.

I did not argue they have the right to, I argue that if it takes decades to find someone has crossed the border illegally, then it is too late to act on that, especially if they have established a life in the country they immigrated into. You do not have the right to steal from me, but if it takes me 20 years to find out you did so, in many countries, you will not be criminally charged anymore, for instance. It's about the time span, the proportionality and collateral damage (family!).

You could rewrite the definition of "safe" to exclude any country you don't like. That is no longer asylum. It's abusing a system.

Also "racist"? Aren't the refugees racist for wanting to skip an entire continent just to go straight to America? Why don't you call them out if none want to apply for asylum with the neighbors they have next door? Why avoid them or believe their countries aren't "safe"?

Yoshi said:

Maybe you should then collect some information on the role western countries, in particular UK and US, played in establishing Israel.

The United States had an embargo on Israel until 1967. The UK also made active attempts to stop Jews from emigrating to Israel during the war years. In fact, the same Jewish immigrants had to be smuggled into Palestine with the help of militia groups.

Maybe you're the one who needs to collect more information?

Edit: To also suggest that only Israel had foreign support is HIGHLY misleading. There are third world countries today that still have millions of dollars pumped into them, yet living standards still remain the same as it was decades ago. In other cases, they even went completely backwards (see, the fall of Rhodesia to modern Zimbabwe. Or the fall of former Portuguese territories).

I already pointed out the population was founded by persecuted WW2 survivors. In terms of support, Israel was up against the entire Arab world and literally a fought a civil war before declaring true independence.. You are actually providing the worse examples right now that Israel was born rich.

Yoshi said:

And I also argue towards putting maximum effort into preventing climate change levels of disaster. Yes, a climate disaster would be an existential crisis for humanity and that includes rich countries.

And the same can be said about going from Syria to Japan.
Again, your arguments are starting to look dishonest. Did you really think people only go to Japan by crossing dangerous countries?

Yoshi said:

I am unsure whether you have heard about it, but there was an invention called the internet, where you can get information. It is pretty neat, even though it of course also offers opportunities for hardcore racists to spread their ideology. In fact, there was a huge discussion of refugees "mysteriously" owning internet-capable touch phones a few years back. If you were to move to another country from a war-ridden country, would you not take a look which options you have and which appear to be the best choice, among various variables, such as liklihood of getting accepted?

Well if I was in a war torn country, my first choice wouldn't be to go on the internet and waste time looking up a foreign country that doesn't even speak the same language as mine, let alone, have two completely different cultures. I would either evacuate to safer parts of the country or actually fight back.

It actually speaks volumes if there are millions of people with access to technology but they would rather permanently desert, then either enlist in the army or go into hiding until the war is over.

Yoshi said:

Maybe you should move to Japan then, if you hate current laws in your country so much.

Fortunately for me, I actually try and have hope for my own country first before choosing to abandon it. I actually don't want to suffer the same fate of Syria if the population is more occupied with living in foreign countries with completely opposite cultures then actually staying behind and trying to improve it.

Yoshi said:

I did not argue they have the right to, I argue that if it takes decades to find someone has crossed the border illegally, then it is too late to act on that, especially if they have established a life in the country they immigrated into.

If illegals can make a blatant mockery of U.S laws, then I would prefer for them to be true to their convictions. Let them tresspass into governemnt sanctioned buildings and sell their sob story to the President.

Junior Member

It serves as proof that one can make arguments against immigration, while the other side is only use to calling the other "racist".

This is how we define narratives. If one side has facts on their side, but the other only has emotion, which do you feel is more important to guide public policy?

Unfortunately, when you look at modern politics at large, most people are too afraid of including facts in their arguments. That is how we end up with modern people being very susceptible to brainwashing because they're not taught to think critically for themselves.

The United States had an embargo on Israel until 1967. The UK also made active attempts to stop Jews from emigrating to Israel during the war years. In fact, the same Jewish immigrants had to be smuggled into Palestine with the help of militia groups.

Israel only exists since 1948, so it was only 20 years until they obtained a particularly strong (unique even) support by the US in form of the qualitative military edge. Israel's situation is not comparable to a third world country at all.

No, I was arguing that one reason why the way to Japan may be seen as more dangerous than to America is, that the direct line you suggested in your images would cross several dangerous countries, whereas it would only cross the sea to reach America.

Well if I was in a war torn country, my first choice wouldn't be to go on the internet and waste time looking up a foreign country that doesn't even speak the same language as mine, let alone, have two completely different cultures.

If you were about to run away from your country, I am pretty sure you would research where to go. It would be tremendously stupid not to. And if you were coming from a majority muslim state, choosing one with very similar culture would provide difficult, because the majority of majority muslim countries are not exactly liberal democracies.

If illegals can make a blatant mockery of U.S laws, then I would prefer for them to be true to their convictions. Let them tresspass into governemnt sanctioned buildings and sell their sob story to the President.

Junior Member

No, I was arguing that one reason why the way to Japan may be seen as more dangerous than to America is, that the direct line you suggested in your images would cross several dangerous countries, whereas it would only cross the sea to reach America.

There are other means to traverse water than airplanes and thus we have one reasonably safe way to get to Japan, that is entirely the same for going to the US, but an additional reasonably save way to get to the US (by boat / ship). And if you take an airplane anyway, then it is reasonable to consider factors such as
- how likely is it one gets accepted?
- do you maybe already understand the language (partially)
- ... or at least the alphabet used?

Expansive Ellipses

Leave the political bickering out of this thread or the involved parties will get reply banned. Start a thread in the Politics section or a PM conversation if you’d like to continue the discussion. Thanks.

Darkness no more

ERA pretty much already does this. I wonder if they will make it an official stance...“Popular knitting and crocheting website Ravelry (with approx. 8 million members) bans all support for Donald Trump”

https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump New Policy: Do Not Post In Support of Trump or his Administration Sunday, June 23rd 2019 We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry. This includes support in the form of forum posts, projects, patterns, profiles, and all...

Member

ERA pretty much already does this. I wonder if they will make it an official stance...“Popular knitting and crocheting website Ravelry (with approx. 8 million members) bans all support for Donald Trump”

https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump New Policy: Do Not Post In Support of Trump or his Administration Sunday, June 23rd 2019 We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry. This includes support in the form of forum posts, projects, patterns, profiles, and all...

Member

ERA pretty much already does this. I wonder if they will make it an official stance...“Popular knitting and crocheting website Ravelry (with approx. 8 million members) bans all support for Donald Trump”

https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump New Policy: Do Not Post In Support of Trump or his Administration Sunday, June 23rd 2019 We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry. This includes support in the form of forum posts, projects, patterns, profiles, and all...

Was told Republican party almost irrelevant because consists mainly of old people. Now a website for old people bans all Republicans from speaking. Does not compute. Why is 8 million member website banning its 8 million users from expressing vote. Cannot explain. Brain fried. Shutting down now.

Patient MembeR

Was told Republican party almost irrelevant because consists mainly of old people. Now a website for old people bans all Republicans from speaking. Does not compute. Why is 8 million member website banning its 8 million users from expressing vote. Cannot explain. Brain fried. Shutting down now.

Y'know, in an ironic way, these ideologues are doing a great job of showing why "hierarchies" are flawed, because they can be infected by self-righteous do-gooders and corrupted in this way to affect a large number of people at a time.

Member

Y'know, in an ironic way, these ideologues are doing a great job of showing why "hierarchies" are flawed, because they can be infected by self-righteous do-gooders and corrupted in this way to affect a large number of people at a time.

I switched from like to LOL cause I'm laughing at the thought they would ever let facts ever become a narrative. You know how this works. Starting tomorrow the majority of nitters are highly educated people under 35 with 2 children and 3 jobs.

Member

So in my mind its not and if, but only a how to accomplish it. So if you want to have a debate on if, then this isn't for you. So I propose a 1 trillion dollar package of straight cash and community reinvestment/housing. I would propose we first do away with tax burden on those 18 and over...

Member

So in my mind its not and if, but only a how to accomplish it. So if you want to have a debate on if, then this isn't for you. So I propose a 1 trillion dollar package of straight cash and community reinvestment/housing. I would propose we first do away with tax burden on those 18 and over...